Do convicted felons have a right to DNA testing?
posted at 2:10 pm on March 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Supreme Court will decide whether convicted felons have the right to a DNA test to challenge evidence after their convictions. The court heard arguments on Monday in the appeal of William Osborne, who demanded a test after his conviction in Alaska on assault involving a prostitute. Osborne and the Innocence Project, working on his behalf, argue that the Constitution gives Osborne the right to challenge the evidence after conviction, at state expense:
Supreme Court justices appeared closely divided Monday over claims by an Alaska inmate that the Constitution guarantees a right to post-conviction DNA testing.
The court’s most conservative members are clearly aligned against inmate William Osborne, who was convicted of assaulting a prostitute known only as K.G. The court’s most liberal members sounded sympathetic to expanded testing. At most, the odds appear to favor a narrow decision.
“This is a particularly poor candidate for recognizing a new constitutional right,” Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, an Obama appointee, told the court.
There are essentially two questions here. First, does the state have a responsibility to provide cost-free testing services after conviction to inmates for their appeals? And does that question rise to a Constitutional level under the jurisdiction of the federal courts? The latter question is complicated by the fact that 44 states already provide that service; Alaska just happens to be one of six that do not. Even those states that have the process Osborne wants in Alaska filed amicus briefs against his appeal, arguing that the states can craft their own remedies much better than a federal mandate would.
One hopes that DNA testing would be done in each case where it’s applicable. DNA doesn’t figure into every conviction, though, and defenses can always do their own DNA testing to counter a prosecution, although cost is often an issue. A lack of a DNA match or of DNA material doesn’t mean a verdict of innocence in every case, but it is an important piece of evidence to weigh.
However, it seems a far stretch to call it a constitutional obligation. There have not been any such constitutional obligations to do fingerprint analysis, for instance, or pre-DNA blood work. In fact, it’s difficult to see where in the Constitution such a “right” would originate. The Fourth and Fifth Amendments restrict governments from unreasonable searches and seizures and protect citizens against being forced to testify against themselves, the latter a right that prosecutors have to overcome with probable cause before getting a DNA test from a defendant. Nothing in the Constitution says that states have to make testing free and available to convicts.
It’s a matter best left to the individual states, and hopefully the court will reach that conclusion quickly.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yes.
Skywise on March 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Yes, as long as they pay for it AND we can take DNA from every criminal convicted of a crime…..
HornetSting on March 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM
I say yes, let him get the DNA testing, but if it strengthens the case aganist him, or anyone else who would benefit from a precedent being established, he and they should lose any right to appeal, even in cases tried with the death penalty on the line.
AubieJon on March 4, 2009 at 2:14 PM
It is my understanding that every person who is arrested gives fingerpints, I can not understand why at the same time they don’t take DNA.
L
letget on March 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
No and No.
myrenovations on March 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM
A DNA test would be non-testimonial, and wouldn’t come under the 5th Amendment protection. Neither does the taking of a fingerprint. It, too, is non-testimonial.
OhEssYouCowboys on March 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Probably not a Constitutional issue, but it seems in the interest of the state to consider it if there is some possibility that a criminal is free and an innocent person incarcerated.
dedalus on March 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
If someone was convicted of a felony or any other crime & there was no proper DNA testing or analysis where there should have been, then the prosecutors & DAs should be responsible enough to mandate it at the state’s expense.
If a reputable lab did the test & the proper comparisons were made, then NO. Let them pay for it themselves.
Badger40 on March 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Probably not legal, and probably rather expensive.
firepilot on March 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I would say yes with provisions. Everyone should have the applicable evidence tested at the state’s expense, but if the DNA proves your guilt then you cannot appeal your case. I think it would end up saving us money.
txaggie on March 4, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I don’t think that anyone’s DNA should be collected UNLESS they have been convicted of a felony.
Otherwise, my DNA is my business, as my fingerprints should be when I’m arrested.
Given the fact we have already given up our ‘rights’ to our own fingerprints, then the slippery slope has been set for DNA.
But the possibility of mismanagement of DNA is HUGE.
Course, we leave our DNA everywhere we go, so make them get it another way.
Badger40 on March 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Only if you’re an illegal alien…….
Seven Percent Solution on March 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM
All valid evidence, excuplatory and condemning, needs to be considered. If DNA can prove whether or not a convicted felon was actually guilty, then the evidence needs to be presented. If DNA evidence exonerates the felon after the fact, then he’s free to go. If it supports the convition, then any further appeals are voided.
Vic on March 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM
At the current rate of advancement in science this should become a non-issue in less than a few years. The cost of PCR testing is going down and the accessibility keeps going up.
chansen9 on March 4, 2009 at 2:23 PM
In this case they did a primitive form of DNA testing, now there are much better tests that are more sure. I can’t necessarily say that this is a constitutional requirement, but I want those who commit crimes to be in prison. I don’t want a conviction that closes a case but puts an innocent person in jail while the real criminal roams free. That’s not justice.
rbj on March 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM
If by a right to DNA testing you mean the same as those in the Bill of Rights, I say no.
I do also think that such testing should not be denied to a person accused of a crime.
Giving it the status of a Constitutional Right would be bad decision, and would only complicate further the maze that law enforcement agencies. I can see instances where a defendant claims his rights were violated because nobody tested his DNA, even though there is video, audio, and other prima facie evidence to prove his guilt without any DNA testing. Think of cases where obviously guilty persons were released simply because the Miranda warning was given improperly or not at all.
BobMbx on March 4, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Another great opportunity to take away power from the states. Woooo-hooo! /sarc
I wish the courts could get used to saying to the plantiffs:
WashJeff on March 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
careful what you wish for felons!
http://www.truthinjustice.org/laguer.htm
max1 on March 4, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Long story short. A convicted brutal rapist of a then 59 year old woman, Ben LaGuer was befriended by Deval Patrick (Obama buddy, MA Gov.) who fought for his release. Along comes DNA testing and Patrick contributes $5K to have the test run in 2002 which turns out positive. That didn’t stop members of Patrick’s team from still trying to get him released.
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Yes.
JellyToast on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Great minds! LOL!
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Oh please, let’s not pretend that the lack of any language mentioning such a right in the Constitution is going to prevent the SCOTUS from being able to find that such a right exists anyway.
Ever heard of “penumbras” and “emanations”?
AZCoyote on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Ditto. If it exonerates and the government holds it back, that’s wrong. Seems win-win to provide proof either way.
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Let’s say this was a murder case. Because this ruling would extend to other cases besides assault.
It’s a murder case and the person murdered is a family member of someone who makes these decisions during the trial process. Let’s say…the victim is the daughter of a sheriff. Maybe the “justice” system doesn’t want to look at anyone other than this one person. Maybe they have a grudge against him. Maybe they’ll rule that no DNA testing has to be done.
If we’re going to excecute someone for a crime, I want to make sure the person is guilty.
But then again, that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not DNA testing is guaranteed in the Constitution.
My head hurts now.
SuperManGreenLantern on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Great minds! LOL!
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Right! And the fact that the lib race-mongerers never gave up on this skel proves the point that a lib will never let the facts get in the way of his BS!
max1 on March 4, 2009 at 2:29 PM
They probably have the right to a DNA test in nearly every case, because it’s objective evidence. But the fact that a DNA sample doesn’t belong to the accused is not always proof of innocence. It could also be a case where the rapist wore a condom during the crime, but his unknown uncaptured accomplice’s condom broke during the crime.
RBMN on March 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
No problem here…as long as they don’t confuse an absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
James on March 4, 2009 at 2:30 PM
No. The way I see it is that the state has to make its case beyond a shadow of doubt. If that can be done without DNA testing, they shouldn’t be obligated.
highhopes on March 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Thanks for that link. I don’t rememnber reading that. I like this quote:
Except, you know, coning people that he was innocent, taking their money for a test who knew he would fail. Other than that he’s been completely redeemed. ROFLMAO! Liberalism is a mental disorder…
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Yes, but if the evidents point to there being guilty then we shoot them.
/s
There is only one thing worse than letting a guilty man go, and that is locking up an innocent man.
And since I am thinking about it,
Those tramps that accused Kobe and the lax team should get 20 years for falsely accusing people.
TheSitRep on March 4, 2009 at 2:33 PM
That’s what lawyers do. If they can’t get their client off with DNA results, they attack some other aspect of the conviction.
highhopes on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
In New Mexico, they take DNA from convicted criminals, but not sure if it is just felons or misdemeanors too. The reason I know this is because our house was broken into right before Christmas and they took guns, jewelry….but they left us a present…their DNA on the broken window. Hopefully this will be a match and they will be convicted.
HornetSting on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
“There are essentially two questions here. First, does the state have a responsibility to provide cost-free testing services after conviction to inmates for their appeals?”
The state, meaning >us< have an obligation to determine the facts of each case with all the tools at our disposal, not pick and choose the evidence we like.
So, yeah I favor this.
dogsoldier on March 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Except, you know, coning people that he was innocent, taking their money for a test who knew he would fail. Other than that he’s been completely redeemed. ROFLMAO! Liberalism is a mental disorder…
TheBigOldDog on March 4, 2009 at 2:32 PM
precisely!
max1 on March 4, 2009 at 2:35 PM
If a DNA test was part of the state’s case and there is sufficient evidence that the test was improper or came back with a false positive, I believe the state should have to validate that their evidence was correct.
If the DNA test was not part of the state’s case OR there is no evidence that the DNA test was compromised, I think the financial burden is on the convict. He can DNA test until the cows come home but not on the taxpayer’s dime.
JadeNYU on March 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
To my thinking we’re talking about wrongful imprisonment, which the Constitution specifically forbids:
“nor shall any person…..be deprived of life, liberty, or property”
(Amendment 5)
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Quite a burden you’ve put on the state. Not only do they have to make a case on the preponderence of the evidence, they have to exhaust all known approaches to prove it.
highhopes on March 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Yes to DNA testing. No for fabricating Constitutional rights out of thin air.
JohnJ on March 4, 2009 at 2:38 PM
What say you in a case where, though not part of original case, the DNA test would provide 100% ironclad proof of innocence but the one convicted cannot afford the cost? Should an innocent person remain imprisioned in that case?
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Given the error rate in our criminal justice system — remember, folks, the criminal justice system is a government enterprise; it runs no better than the Post Office or the IRS — and given that a man’s liberty is at stake, I’d give Mr. Osborne access to anything that has a reasonable chance of exonerating him.
If you want a textual basis in the Constitution for a right to DNA testing, I commend to your attention the Ninth Amendment. It’s sufficiently elastic to cover this sort of thing.
paul006 on March 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
A number of states already have on the books, that if you are convicted of a felony, they will take a dna sample to keep on file. Of course, if it matches to a serial killer, tough cookies. And, no, it’s not illegal.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Though,,, should DNA always trump an entire court verdict???
Can DNA not also be planted and tampered with??
This is an area that does concern me. Judgment, guilt and innocence has to be more than just DNA. We can’t throw out other forms of evidence, witnesses and so forth just based on DNA any more than we would for just fingerprints. It is one part of the puzzle. Not the entire thing.
JellyToast on March 4, 2009 at 2:44 PM
I believe it would make a detective’s life a lot easier. Your average criminal is usually a repeat offender. Watch cops or First 48, these asshats have records as long as their arms. It would be nice to just take the evidence and compare, like fingerprints.
HornetSting on March 4, 2009 at 2:50 PM
I get your underlying point, JellyT, but the problem is that reasoning can be flipped around and apply to incriminating DNA evidence offered by the state. You can’t use something to convict while refusing that same methodology to show innocence. It’s a “can’t have it both ways” issue.
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I think there’s been enough evidence that shows the state can be wrong. I don’t trust the state to confirm that their evidence is infallible.
historybot on March 4, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Tomorrow is the date for oral arguments on the Prop 8 challenge. I dread all the nonsense starting up again.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Taking DNA from everyone charged with a felony may be the way to go…
DL13 on March 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Yes.
100% agreement with the above.
DNA cannot be used to prove that a person is the perpetrator of the crime for which DNA evidence is available (since more than one person may have the particular values for the particular markers tested), but it can be used to prove that a person IS NOT the perpetrator of a crime for which DNA evidence is available if the tested markers do not match.
Our justice system is of the “innocent until proven guilty” type. When “proof of guilt” is called into question due to the existence of possible exculpatory evidence, the State bears the responsibility to examine the new evidence. If the State fails to do that, “proven guilty” can become false even after a guilty verdict has been returned by a jury.
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM
And how will the Court use DNA testing to determine its path in this matter?
unclesmrgol on March 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Can we please stop asking the question of whether the Constitution gives a right? The Constitution does not give rights. I don’t mean to sound quarrelsome, but it really is a very important principle.
That said, the burden of proof is on the government. If someone has been convicted, a judge or jury has decided that the government met that burden. Now the burden is on the convicted. I would be willing to say that if the convicted is able to establish his innocence with DNA, the government (taxpayer) picks up the tab; if, however, he is unsuccessful, the convicted’s counsel (whether private or public defender) personally pays for it (the threat of money from the lawyer’s pocket should help reduce frivolous claims).
DrMagnolias on March 4, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Even when it comes to law enforcent agencies I’m not overly happy with any government agency maintaining a “genetic database”.
But I could see it with some catergories of those convicted (not just charged)of specific crimes where DNA is germaine to the crime or was used to obtain a conviction. Keeping books from a library in an amount that meets the felony monetary definition and like offenses to property would not be on my list of DNAbase-worthy offenses, for example.
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM
That raises another question (for me anyway). Does the Constitution give law enforcement the right to take DNA from a convicted felon?
SuperManGreenLantern on March 4, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Yes. It’s non-testimonial evidence, i.e., 5th Amend. does not apply and it is not intrusive, i.e., inner cheek swab.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I see this as a justice issue. If DNA evidence would provide added clarity to a verdict, someone should have every right to seek that clarity.
Costs and hassle should not be a barrier to justice.
TheUnrepentantGeek on March 4, 2009 at 3:58 PM
This is a tough one. Based on the question as stated, if there is 100% proof that the person is innocent, of course, they should be released. Unfortunately, in reality, there is no way to know in advance whether or not the DNA will actually exonerate someone until it’s tested.
If the DNA wasn’t originally part of the state’s evidence, it means that the state was able to build a compelling, “beyond reasonable doubt” case without the DNA evidence that led to the person’s conviction. If the DNA was not available at the time and only came to light later, I believe it falls under the category of new evidence and can be used as the grounds for an appeal. In cases like that where the appeal is granted and the case is reopened, the state should pay for the DNA testing just as they would if they were to use the DNA in the original case.
In cases where it is not new evidence but was unnecessary to get the conviction, I think it puts an unfair burden on the state to not only prove their case (which they did if the person was convicted) but to exhaust all the possible lines of evidence whether it’s needed for their case or not.
Suppose there is someone that has been caught on video tape raping & murdering someone so the state did not feel the need to process the DNA evidence. Now the person wants the DNA evidence tested (because they’re delusional, because they like wasting time, because they like wasting money, because having pending legal actions means they get visits from a lawyer and they’re lonely, etc). Should the burden be on the state to pay for the DNA testing?
What about cases like the one in question? A DNA test was done but the lawyer at the time didn’t ask for the most up-to-date test. Should the state now pay for another test because they changed their minds or there’s another lawyer?
It seems very problematic and prone to abuse unless it’s a law that’s carefully crafted which I think is done much better on the state level than the one-size-fits-all federal level.
JadeNYU on March 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Wow, this is tough for me but I have to say no. Question #2 trumps question #1. The very last thing we need right now is to tempt the fed to take any more power from states. Let Alaska decide.
GregoryNeilSmith on March 4, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Interesting query before the court. However I think it foists the wrong mindset. The DNA testing should be required BEFORE a prosecution begins. Any samples should be processed and the results offered to any person of interest that the State would have probable cause to suspect of the deed.
The defense could run their own tests to clear a candidate. Some will say the testing is expensive. Well tell you what, add up the cost of the judge, detective, ADA, court reporter, etc and 2 hours of that is one heck of a lot more expensive than a DNA comparison.
Dr. Dog on March 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Not being contrary, just can’t find it. Where is non testimonial evidence in the Constitution? Thanks.
SuperManGreenLantern on March 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Good question. We’re both working with hypothticals, so it’s more a “gedanken” than anything else. Though I expect there have been-will be scenerios that fit the templates pretty well. But we’re still just kickin’ around interesting “what ifs” here.
However, in the scenerio you offered DNA testing (for awhile now) would be part and parcel of the proceedings – if nothing else via the common rape kit. When blood and other bodily fluids are involved in a crime scene DNA sampling is ubiquitous. So, though I see your underlying point, that example isn’t the best example of it.
(You could futher complicate it by citing misidentification on the tape. Throw in a twin brother or whatever.)
But I think the bottom-line core question – and you posed it – is: Would it exonerate the individual? If the answer is “yes”, I don’t see how or why it should be prevented. None of us wants the innocent to be imprisoned and the guilty to walk free.
Thus, to answer: “Should the burden be on the state to pay for the DNA testing?”, the answer is that the state is obliged to do that which can show innocence, just as it is to pursue that which shows guilt. i.e. “yes”, lol.
The state should pick up the tab and do the test, justice requires it. The original attorney should be subject to whatever rules, regs, laws, etc. if it can be shown he knowingly neglected/refused to submit exculpatory evidence. (and I’d have him billed by the court for the test).
What say you on my scenerio then?
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Nevermind my “What say you on my scenerio then?” – you already answered. The afternoon must be wearing on me.
whatcat on March 4, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Interesting.
At trial, I think it would have been available at state expense since the courts tend to allow most reasonable expenses for court provided defenders. So if the reason it was not done at trial was that it was not yet available, I would think that it should be available after conviction.
However, if the convict had previously REFUSED the test, I don’t think that he should get a second chance. I would even say that if he had refused an equivalent test like a blood-type test, he loses the chance for a new DNA test.
I’m sure this isn’t on firm legal ground but it seems to provide the best balance from a justice standpoint.
OBQuiet on March 4, 2009 at 4:45 PM
And when he gets his DNA test and it doesn’t help his case, what then? Further testing? Testing of the lab, testing of the people who run the lab?
If the prosecutor had DNA evidence, but did not use it at trail; and the defense did not subpoena it, how then does he get to challenge this, post-conviction? You had your trail buddy, suck it up.
GarandFan on March 4, 2009 at 4:46 PM
I think alot of people are missing the point. The subject isn’t what we want, or what should happen, but what is guaranteed under the Constitution.
SuperManGreenLantern on March 4, 2009 at 4:48 PM
I believe, using the 5th Amendment, one could argue your ability to protect against testifying yourself is being hindered.
The only DNA being considered is the defendants.
If this were upheld – throw out a states rights argument – of which I think is dangrous.
Odie1941 on March 4, 2009 at 5:05 PM
The Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment precludes the State from taking life, liberty, or property without Due Process. So the real question is whether post-conviction DNA testing constitutes Due Process. I believe it does. As the old maxim states, “I would rather 100 guilty men go free, than 1 innocent man be put to death.”
Nor should a person’s inability to pay for the test deprive them of access to possibly exculpatory evidence. If a person has a right to appointed counsel, they should have the right to scientifically test the evidence being used against them.
Doug from Clovis on March 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM
If the crime occurred recently, why in hades was there no pre-trial testing?
Pelayo on March 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM
The Constitution guarantees the right to confront one’s accuser therefore a citizen should have access to the same technology being used to string the noose around his or her neck.
There are too many Michael Nifongs running around to not permit one the means to defend against same.
viking01 on March 4, 2009 at 6:35 PM
It’s not. Therefore, there is no constitutional right not to be compelled to give non-testimonial evidence.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Remember this doofus? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Keith_Coleman
There as an overwhelming amount of evidence against this guy plus a dna test. But, oh noooooo! It wasn’t enough. Ten years after his execution they told enough lies to get a second one. Guess what? HE DID IT.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 6:59 PM
This is a waste of time and money:
In March of 1993, William Osborne and Dexter Jackson allegedly hired a prostitute named K.G. to perform fellatio on them. See Osborne v. District Attorney’s Office, 521 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir., 2008). Osborne and Jackson drove K.G. to a secluded area where they brutally attacked her and Osborne raped her, while wearing a blue condom, at gunpoint. See id. Afterwards, as K.G. attempted to flee, the two men chased after her and beat her in the head with an axe handle. See id. K.G. then lay in the snow and played dead, at which point Osborne shot a gun at her, but the bullet narrowly missed, grazing her head. See id. Osborne and Jackson then left her for dead. See id. After being sure they had left, K.G. got up and flagged down a passing car for a ride home. See id. She told the car’s passengers what had happened, but did not want the police to get involved and insisted on being taken home. See id.
The next day, one of the passenger’s neighbors called the police about the incident. See Osborne, 521 F.3d at 1122. K.G. was examined, and hair and blood samples were collected during her physical examination. See id. When the police went to the crime scene, they recovered a spent shell casing and a used blue condom. See id. A week later, police arrested Jackson during a traffic stop after finding a gun in his glove compartment, which was later determined to be the same gun that had fired the spent shell casing found at the crime scene. See id. at 1123. K.G. identified Osborne in a police photo lineup as being the “most familiar” and “most likely” to have raped her. See id. However, Osborne later unsuccessfully asserted a mistaken identity defense at trial, pointing out that this was a cross-racial identification since K.G. was white and Osborne was black. See id. at 1124.
The State’s crime lab tested the sperm found in the blue condom using a relatively non-discriminating “DQ Alpha” DNA test. See Osborne, 521 F.3d at 1123. Although the DNA test resulted in a match with Osborne, roughly fifteen percent of all African Americans would also have fit the match. See id. Osborne’s lawyer strategically decided not to send the sample in for a more precise RFLP DNA testing, as she did not believe in Osborne’s innocence and determined that the RFLP DNA test would only confirm his guilt. See id. at 1123-24.
At Alaska trial court in 1994, the jury convicted Osborne of kidnapping, first-degree assault, and two counts of first-degree sexual assault, and sentenced him to twenty-six years imprisonment with five years suspended.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-6
I have no problems providing testing when there is a need but there is not a need in all cases.
Blake on March 4, 2009 at 7:00 PM
I believe that the convicted already has the right for his “defense team” to examine all the evidence, so the real question is “does he have the right to have the state pay for the tests?”
No, but if the tests do appear exonerate he should get a new trial.
darktood on March 4, 2009 at 8:31 PM
No, I want the Feds out of it. Let the states decide.
In practice I am not against this, but I hate finding out that the Supreme Court finds new Rights in the Constitution weekly.
Tim Burton on March 4, 2009 at 10:16 PM
It was my understanding that the inmate did not argue for free testing but was willing to pay for it himself, which I had no problem with. However he has been fighting his own lawyers the court and the state, I believe, both before, during and after trial. I find it distressing, whether he is guilty or innocent, that this definitive proof of guilt or innocence has been obstructed by persons who should be searching for the truth.
eaglewingz08 on March 4, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Only if the accused criminal believes in evolution.
profitsbeard on March 5, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Pay it with what? The man is a career criminal and his income is from robbing people. He has been incarcerated almost his entire adult life. He was released from prison on this case and managed to stay free an entire 6 months before being arrested and convicted of home invasion robbery where he pistol whipped hostages. Now he has another 16 years to do.
Blake on March 5, 2009 at 3:59 AM